IMO, Green Day and Social D don't belong here, but I would be willing to listen to one's case for.

In their place, I might include any combination of Buzzcocks, The Descendents, Husker Du, Mission Of Burma, Richard Hell & The Voidoids, Stiff Little Fingers and to a lesser extent The Slits, The Cramps, Wire, X, Gang Green, et al....

Also absent any distinction between hardcore and punk-rock, I suppose...or else The Replacements would be way up there too.

My main problem, as usual, is with this need to classify music into neat little categories. Yes, there was a time period when so-called "punk" bands were in vogue and they all seemed to share a certain sound. Sure, it helps when discussing music to place it in categories but to me the categorization of music is not meaningful. Pop music has always gone through trends and bands trying to succeed very often ride those trends. For me, it is always about the sound and if it catches my ear.

I think the Sex Pistols are one of the most overrated "bands" in the history of music. They are as much an artificial creation as The Monkees and dare I say, The Archies too. I would much rather listen to the latter two "bands" than any of the crap the Sex Pistols recorded.

This is right up my alley. Until I saw Green Day.. They are bubble gum, punk.. Dreadful. Matty Scorns list is much better. Buzzcocks (saw them Saturday in London England actually and they still bring it) and Stiff Little Fingers belong easily.. Again.. Green Day? What a joke

My main problem, as usual, is with this need to classify music into neat little categories. Yes, there was a time period when so-called "punk" bands were in vogue and they all seemed to share a certain sound. Sure, it helps when discussing music to place it in categories but to me the categorization of music is not meaningful. Pop music has always gone through trends and bands trying to succeed very often ride those trends.Posted by devildavid

Agreed. You're very consistent in your feelings about categorization, which I appreciate. In this era, it's spot on that the sole purpose of categorization is for historical narrative.

What I would tend to notice more and what I find interesting, is a bands' influences, especially when the influences are drawn from many genres.

The real problem with something like a reader poll is that the net result becomes the "most popular" and overall, what does that even mean? Not much. However, it may generate a decent discussion. :D

Operation Ivy. I remember that Green Day covered an Op Ivy song, actually.

Green Day was very pivotal in the respect that they condensed the punk attitude and format into catchier, more organized tunes. They, along with the Offspring, were at the front of this movement (IMO). They paved the way for all the crap that was to come, including everything GD has released after their first three albums (Dookie being the third).

Compared to the other bands, they are not a punk band. Especially after the turn of the century. Although, punk is a relative term.

Operation Ivy. I remember that Green Day covered an Op Ivy song, actually. Green Day was very pivotal in the respect that they condensed the punk attitude and format into catchier, more organized tunes. They, along with the Offspring, were at the front of this movement (IMO). They paved the way for all the crap that was to come, including everything GD has released after their first three albums (Dookie being the third). Compared to the other bands, they are not a punk band. Especially after the turn of the century. Although, punk is a relative term.Posted by phsmith8

I really like some of the Offspring songs. What category do they go in?

The Offspring were an interesting breed. There was a degree of catchiness to their songs, pretty poppy at times (my friend's got a girlfriend and he hates that b----). A punk attitude (most of the time). A lot of what makes punk music punk is the speed and intensity of playing, and they know that very well. However, I would lump them into the alt-rock category, because they aren't pop-punk (most of the time).

I recommend Smash, and for comparison's sake listen to Americana. Very different albums.

I recall a documentary about the american hardcore scene that was pretty comprehensive, especially about the differences between the NY and LA scenes as well as all the smaller city-centric acts.

The name of the film escapes me at the moment...

But zilla is right, if you actually heard of the band they were likely either already gone or had outgrown their peers into something different. Eventually, they were just a flurry of names and bruises and dank clubs....

Early Replacements were pretty hardcore punk.. then their last two albums were almost soft rock.. Somtimes you hear bands like the Damned, The Fall, or Gang of Four categorized as punk.All good bands not sure I would call them all punk although Gang of Four had some good punk stuff

All this discussion about what is punk or not punk nicely illustrates why I don't think categorizing music has much use. I just follow my ears to what appeals to me. Don't care if a "pop' band sounds "punk" or a "punk" band sounds "pop". But I know human beings love to classify things, whether in science or music. Naming things gives a false impression of some kind of logic or order to the universe that simply doesn't exist.

As Satchmo once said, and it applies to everything in life as well as jazz, "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know."

Operation Ivy. I remember that Green Day covered an Op Ivy song, actually. Green Day was very pivotal in the respect that they condensed the punk attitude and format into catchier, more organized tunes. They, along with the Offspring, were at the front of this movement (IMO). They paved the way for all the crap that was to come, including everything GD has released after their first three albums (Dookie being the third). Compared to the other bands, they are not a punk band. Especially after the turn of the century. Although, punk is a relative term.Posted by phsmith8

Do you know NOFX? I only heard of them because of a guy I used to know. They seem to be part of that second "wave" in the 1990's that you mentioned.

@Matty: Re: RS -- Agreed on relevance, but TBH, as far as webzines go, or keeping up, aren't they all covering the same material? Or is it just that RS is so overwrought at this point? Same old grind to please the same readers? It's not on the vanguard, but to me it's like Playboy. People still read it.

All music websites and webzines, or any other online presence, have a slew of "TOP 100" lists. We are so overloaded with listmania. It's discouraging. I can remember waiting until the end of the year to read "best of" lists and taking them to heart. Now, we're all so jaded because the lists are generated every week. So sad, so stale, so subjective. :)

I don't know if I've heard anything by Richard Hell and the Voidoids, but I've always thought that is one of the best band names ever.Posted by Hfxsoxnut

'Blank Generation' is probably the best known song and it is more or less an anthem of punk rock. If you like this style music I highly recommend Television, a group that Tom Verlaine and Richard Hell both started out in. The guitar playing of Verlaine is actually very un-punk-like , in that it is very good not just lots of noise.

I moved on from Punk to Alternative , to Industrial in the late 80's. Many of the Industrial/Goth/Alternative type bands had more of the old punk attitude (lots of anger) , example Front 242,NIN and Ministry. The Replacements are a good example of a great punk band that became a great non-punk band. Groups like Blondie and Talking Heads started out in the punk era playing alongside punk bands at CBGB's but were never really true Punk bands.....although I do like both, especially the Heads....David Byrne always seemed kind of bizarre and wacky, which is right down my alley.

As devildavid says, the categorization thing is always an issue. I like a Canadian band called Billy Talent. They were labelled as a punk rock band at the outset. The singer definitely has a punk voice and there's a fair amount of anger and angst in the material. But to me they are essentially a rock band, the songs are built around ear-catching hooks and riffs.

As devildavid says, the categorization thing is always an issue. I like a Canadian band called Billy Talent. They were labelled as a punk rock band at the outset. The singer definitely has a punk voice and there's a fair amount of anger and angst in the material. But to me they are essentially a rock band, the songs are built around ear-catching hooks and riffs.Posted by Hfxsoxnut

You get it! Get past the labels and just listen to the music. Why think about whether a band is a true anything? Bands that last long enough often change their style just because they become better players with practice. Some bands are limited by their level of talent and never change. Splitting hairs over which band is a true "punk" or any other kind of band is pretty much a pointless exercise unless you like endless debate.

As for me, I think of most music as "pop", which really doesn't mean anything. To me it encompasses all forms of "popular" music. The definition of popular is another subject of endless debate.

Totally agree with devil on the categories. What is and isn't punk? Is punk also new wave? Is new wave alternative? Whatever. That said, the Clash is my third-favorite band (behind the Beatles and Pink Floyd) and the Replacements would be somewhere in my top 10. XTC is just outside.Posted by LloydDobler

The Clash is one of my favorite bands, too. I have to admit, it took me a bit to adjust to their sound on the first album. But after repeated listenings, the great songs and hooks came through. Then they later came out with more great songs with a bit less of a rough edge to them. I half-jokingly refer to The Clash as The Beatles of punk.

and none of those words have any reflection on the actual music, other than certain qualities which may reflect song structure and songwriting rather than the instrumentation.

DD mentioned pop being popular and not really meaning anything. indie just stands for independant, and there used to be a raw sort of quality to it where you could tell that the artist was poor as f---. now the arcade fire are won a grammy with a super well produced album, and it's still called indie.

the same thing happened to alternative, even branching off from that into alt-rock (which wbru claims the music it plays is, another example of how some are just catch-all genres).

to me though, the one term i would use to describe the "indie" movement of the mid 1990's-early 2000's would be "raw". Everything called indie since has been a byproduct of that powerful, emotive, honest, yet oftentimes very stripped down sound.

@yogi - yes, i used to listen to NOFX, but i didn't want to lump them into the same category exactly because they didn't evolve as much over the years. their attitude has always been punk, albeit a much lighter view than other bands. what i really loved about them was their sense of humor. those guys are still around, ya know! check this, it was my favorite back in the day.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2zR_gMaTc

another one i was hesitant to mention was blink182, because although they were around mid 90's, they were really just getting started and didn't last long before they started crafting poppier tunes. they also had that sense of humor that was endearing (although quite distasteful).

Some of the best Punk bands are not even talked about. That's because Punk was an anti-fame, anti- fortune, anti- just about everything genre. If you have heard of them, they probably weren't very good punk bands, at least in the context of what makes for a great band in this genre. Green Day has taken the Punk revival flag in the 90's and run with it longer than expected. Not that I do not like the music , but it is not true punk rock. Frankly, Johnny Thunders and Richard Hell ( and their bands) belong near the top of this list.Posted by ZILLAGOD

Not for nothin', but I'm quite certain that statement can be made by any metalhead about heavy metal. Try reading a metal forum (it's quite entertaining); they are a zealous group of fans who don't give a flying about fame, fortune, or popularity.

Is this part of the "selling out" discussion? Or something else? I think JE has said it best: ultimately, does anyone really snub making a buck off their talent when they're playing the music they want to play? I am not the knowledge-leader here, but I'm not sure why punk would get classified this way (meaning, anti-fame, fortune, etc.) any more than other genres of rock, with the exclusion of pop. Seriously, the minute a band gets a following, doesn't it become a bit disingenuous to say that?

He is a much more intelligent person than many believe. When punk burned itself out and was at last becoming the opposite of what is was meant to be, he jumped off the train and started PIL.

He was not going to be accuse of "dancing for money" ( coincidently also a title of a Graham Parker song) , he could have continued the Sex Pistols and made lots of money off of this extremely successful concept (they only made one LP , but are still talked about 30 year later!). But Lydon refused to sell out the Punk ideal and chose instead to abandon it....quite a risky move for someone tasting success for the first time in his life.

Johnny Rotten interviews can be seen on YOUTUBE, I have watched many of them. He was without doubt a true punk rocker who never sold out and became mainstream. A very interesting and complex individual indeed.

In Response to Re: Best Punk Rock Bands: RS reader poll : Not for nothin', but I'm quite certain that statement can be made by any metalhead about heavy metal. Try reading a metal forum (it's quite entertaining); they are a zealous group of fans who don't give a flying about fame, fortune, or popularity. Is this part of the "selling out" discussion? Or something else? I think JE has said it best: ultimately, does anyone really snub making a buck off their talent when they're playing the music they want to play? I am not the knowledge-leader here, but I'm not sure why punk would get classified this way (meaning, anti-fame, fortune, etc.) any more than other genres of rock, with the exclusion of pop. Seriously, the minute a band gets a following, doesn't it become a bit disingenuous to say that? Posted by yogafriend

punk is the attitude, really. the thing is, a lot of "punk" bands very much draw from reggae influences. the attitude is very much the same, although it's a bit more angry (ha ha). the whole start-a-revolution mentality is taken right from reggae. now, when they start getting into the extremes (anarchy! anarchy!).

not to mention that ska is a big part of the punk movement. and ska is quite simply put generally a reggae style chord progression, played a lot faster and with the reggae style strum (upstrokes only, for the most part). punk and ska bands intertwine their playing often within the same song. it sounds great, and it makes it less monotonous with the change of pace and often the addition of horn sections, etc.

it's not so much making money off it, it's how you live your life regardless of if it makes a living for you in the long run. once the attitude of the songs change, the sound changes, and the music loses what made original fans be into it in the first place. now, whether it's worth it to gain more new fans and lose the old ones to make money? it depends if you love the music you're making and still believe in what you preach...from a punk standpoint, at least.

ONE LAST THING that is really interesting i think. i am surprised that nobody mentioned rancid, they were really important. they were founded by tim armstrong, who was formerly the guitarist for operation ivy. he is NOT related to billy joe armstrong of green day, but they do know each other. tim asked billy joe to join rancid when he formed them, but he declined to pursue green day (a wise choice). I believe they have collaborated, though.